438 replies to this topic

[BCSpace]

Quote

And the one by Talmadge, is official doctrine, being published by the Church.

Quote

While Jesus the Christ is still being published, the Articles of Faith book is no longer offered through Church Distribution, I believe. If so, by your logic, it is no longer official doctrine.

Being offered by Church Distribution is not a stamp of official doctrine.

[BCSpace]

Quote

I think the idea that everything published by the church is "official doctrine", really does run into problems, because I can think of several things that appear in manuals that I know are not "official doctrine". The concept of a Heavenly Mother is not really doctrine.

How do you figure HM is nor doctrine?  It's published by the Church and therefore it is official doctrine.  Who or what says it isn't and how does that trump what the Church has said about what is and is not doctrine?

Quote

The Snow couplet that even Gordon B. Hinckley dismissed as "not doctrine"

Hicnkley did not dismiss it and even he did, such a dismissal would have to be published by the Church.  The FP and Qo12 are equal in authority (D&C 107) so both must agree and what signifies such agreement is publication.

Quote

is in the Gospel Principles manual...etc etc. It's probably true that much of what you find in these manuals will be considered official doctrine, but certainly not "all".

All is official doctrine.  If something is not doctrine, it will be identified as such and therefore the doctrine will be, it's not doctrine.

[BCSpace]

Quote

I think there might be a problem with that.

The one by Talmage was published in 1890 (before Doctrine and Covenants 138 became scripture in 1918.)

D&C 138 says "...the Lord went not in person among the wicked and the disobedient who had rejected the truth, to teach them; But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness, even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead. (Verses 29-30.)

Talmage says "The inauguration of this work among the dead was effected by Christ in the interval between His death and resurrection. While His body lay in the tomb, His spirit ministered to the spirits of the departed: 'By which also He went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water." (Articles of Faith, page 147.)

Not a problem.  If true, then latest date trumps.

Quote

Cobalt-70, on 29 January 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:


the church removed the Lectures on Faith from the D&C.

Was the older version of D&C ever voted on?

The notion of voting on canon or doctrine to make it official is not extant in the Church.  While voting has happened, it has not served to officialize anything and in order to work, we must so vote on a regular basis for anything to be "binding" and that has not been a maintained tradition.  I'd just stick with what the Church says.
.

Quote

(i.e. Were "The Lectures on Faith" ever really canonized by the LDS Church?)

Canonization does not official doctrine make.

[BCSpace]

Quote

Check out the Primary manuals and songs, the children's magazine The Friend. Definitely includes material that is not official doctrine (artwork, poetry, jokes and games, for example, made up stories that generally have morals). The Ensign and New Era often include biographical stories about members which may be true, but are not doctrine. The Church publishes a manual on playing the piano, how to prepare home storage....not doctrinal even if it contributes to the missions of the Church.

All doctrine even though some may not be very important.  Church would not have published them otherwise.  Now I understand you may think it silly to think that piano lessons and artwork (have you seen and read the back of that artwork?) are doctrine, but consider the alternative; people blurring the lines of what is and is not doctrine.  this is  indeed what all critics and some apologist want to further their opinions or favorite chestnuts, but it isn't how the Church sees it.

Edited by BCSpace, 30 January 2012 - 01:42 PM.

[BCSpace]

Quote

What NEW doctrines have come about within the church in say the last 30 years?

Is new doctrine dead?

I think people are often pampered by the scriptures.  They are nonstop inspiration/revelation from God from begining to end so sometimes we miss the fact that they occured over decades or hundreds or thousands of years.  In other words, there were often long eras of time in which there apparently is no new doctrine.

Plus, isn't it possible that we have all we need for now?  Does God have to command in all things?

Edited by BCSpace, 30 January 2012 - 01:39 PM.

[mbh26]

Libs, on 29 January 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

Mark, I'm talking about "official doctrine" for which "the church is willing to be bound" (as B.H. Roberts put it).

In all fairness, one might also ask of the U.S. government what the law is.  Even a lawyer trained in the law can never tell you for sure how your case would turn out in court.  It sure sounds like it'd have to be a specific judges decision on everything since the principles themselves are contradictory IMHO.

[BCSpace]

Quote

I get plenty of opportunity, which I do take advantage of, to ask visiting GA's what the Church's stance is and I can assure I am accurately communicating it to you. I have communicated it this way for decades prior to Approaching Mormon Doctrine as this is how is always been communicated to any typical member, especially missionaries and those who take Teacher Prep courses.

Quote

I'm not picking a fight- really- I just want to point out that this doesn't matter if non-canonized statements by GA's are not "doctrinal".

They could get up one after another in conference and say so, and I admit that would be VERY convincing. But if statements by GA's - even in conference- are not "doctrine" then they would remain what they are- statements by GA's.

It's a circular argument ultimately. And I really don't think that press releases ambiguously drafted are doctrinal either. The press release doesn't even fit its own crtieria for accepting it as "doctrinal".

That's the rub, the Church DOES consider "non canonized" statements by GA's (or even you or me speaking on Conference or writing an article for the Ensign or the Friend) to be official doctrine if officialy published and therefore it does matter.

[BCSpace]

Quote

The problem with that is one cannot tell, merely by pointing to the the scriptures, what official LDS doctrine is. That is why the publications that are official doctrine. Yes, the scriptures are also officially published and in that sense, are doctrine as well as canon, but they are usless for this purpose without interpretation by the prophets and those interpretations are published as manuals etc.

Quote

As I see it, if we are trying to escape ambiguity, that is impossible.

There will always be ambiguity. That's why the Catholics have to re-define everything through encyclicals.

To me, the key is, get used to the fact that there are no facts- and then go to the Lord for guidance.

I have never claimed there is no ambiguity in the doctrine.  Not all questions are answered nor are all details given by official doctrine.  But the Church teaches a notion of "keeping the doctrine pure" and that is accomplished by using the official publications.  That means there exists unambiguously, official doctrine.

[Cobalt-70]

thesometimesaint, on 30 January 2012 - 01:01 PM, said:

I believe that the canonization of the PotF would help clarify our beliefs. I also believe that further revelation is needed to "flesh out" the exact role and functions of our Mother-In-Heaven before I would feel comfortable with that canonization. But no one has put me in charge so I just have to go with what we got.

Yes, but when since the Joseph Smith era has new material ever been added to the canon merely to "clarify our beliefs"? Doctrinal additions to the canon have only thus far been deemed justified when there is either new doctrine (D&C 138) or reversals of doctrine (OD 1 and 2). Why would the church even want to clarify its non-traditionally-Christian beliefs? The ambiguity has served church leaders and missionaries well for decades. The church can have it both ways: members can believe unique and "strange" Mormon beliefs like the Heavenly Mother doctrine, while appearing on the "official" record that the church's beliefs are more traditionally Christian. Plus, Mormons who are Trinitarian--and there are many new members and non-U.S. Mormons in that category--are not necessarily "officially" heterodox.

[BCSpace]

Quote

The newsroom statement says "consistently proclaimed in official Church publications." In order to establish "consistency", there would have to be repeated instances of the teaching.

Not quite.  A question like this about the cirriculum was asked in one of our council meetings in preparation for a conference.  Your notion actually restricts official doctrine to the changing yearly cirriculum materials used by the Church.  We were disabused of this notion.  The way to read it is that the doctrine is consistently published in whatever publication, not that a publication has to be consistently printed.  Just because a doctrine is no longer being "emphasized" doesn't mean it's no longer doctrine.  For example, plural marriage and the priesthood ban remain doctrines of the Church.  That is why you haven't seen them repudiated or apologized for etc.  The Church believes those prophets and apostles were acting under the inspiration/ revelation of God.

[BCSpace]

Quote

I used to think there was a chance the Proclamation on the Family would be canonized, but the older it gets, the more I doubt it. How does the church benefit by canonizing this? It contains nothing new, yet only has the power to alienate potential new converts and turn them off to the church if it is canonized. As of right now, for example, there is nothing whatsoever within the Mormon canon that suggests there is a Heavenly Mother. Almost every Mormon happens to believe this, but why would the church want to make the Heavenly Mother doctrine official? Then, missionaries would no longer be able to deny the officiality of that doctrine when the issue comes up, and as a result, there is a 100% probability that the church will lose at least a some potential converts. Is canonizing the Proclamation worth a reduction in new Mormon converts?

Same goes with the Proclamation's statement that, essentially, "men are made to lead, women to nuture." How would the church benefit from canonizing the Victorian patriarchal system, which was already dated when the Proclamation was written and will only become increasingly dated as time passes? Keeping the status quo will not hurt proselytizing; however, canonizing the patriarchy will.

Why canonize official doctrine?  Official doctrine in many senses is more important and of greater authority than canon.  Canon requires interpretation by the prophets for us to be sure of what it says.  Official doctrine is the sure understanding itself.

[calmoriah]

BCSpace, on 30 January 2012 - 01:22 PM, said:

Being offered by Church Distribution is not a stamp of official doctrine.

Totally agree.

What do you mean then by "being published by the Church"?

[LeSellers]

Cobalt-70, on 30 January 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

Doctrinal additions to the canon have only thus far been deemed justified when there is either new doctrine (D&C 138)

Doc&Cov 138 did not give us new doctrine.

The matter was attested in earlier scripture (1 Peter 3~4). There was a clarification and an expansion of the concept, but it was not new.

Lehi

[calmoriah]

BCSpace, on 30 January 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

All doctrine even though some may not be very important.  Church would not have published them otherwise.  Now I understand you may think it silly to think that piano lessons and artwork (have you seen and read the back of that artwork?) are doctrine, but consider the alternative; people blurring the lines of what is and is not doctrine.  this is  indeed what all critics and some apologist want to further their opinions or favorite chestnuts, but it isn't how the Church sees it.

I think that claiming the recipe for making cookies or playdough or a picture of kids playing in the snow or the song "Popcorn popping on the apricot tree" is doctrine is expanding the term "doctrine" into uselessness.

Edited by calmoriah, 30 January 2012 - 02:10 PM.

[BCSpace]

Quote

The term βαπτίζω or baptizō is the contextually correct understanding of baptism as opposed to ὕδωρ or hydōr as some LDS may believe or as it has been taught by church leaders.

The reasoning:

The new birth means regeneration, with all believers being equally renewed. It has nothing to do with belonging to a church or baptism.

a) Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but incorruptible (1 Pet 1:23)
b) Be a new creation (2 Cor 5:17)
c) Ye must be born again (John 3:7)
d) Except ye be born again, cannot see kingdom (John 3:3)

It doesn't matter.  The principle in my example would still hold if even you are right.  However, it does seem that the official doctrine includes an element of what you are saying but it also includes the notion that being born of the water refers to water baptism:

Quote

4. The hope to be resurrected in the morning of the first resurrection ( Revelation 20:6 ).
To come forth in the morning of the first resurrection is to receive, among other things, a celestialized body. Of course, there can be no exaltation without entering in at the gate of baptism ( John 3:3–5 ).
The Life and Teachings of Jesus and His Apostles 56-23

In other words, nothing I;ve said changes whether you are right or wrong.

Quote

The Prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time. (Fourteen Fundamentals, 27)

Correct.  I never implied that he had to.  His credentials come from the Priesthood keys that he holds.  But as far as the Church is concerned, all 15 prophets and apostles must agree that the prophet is speaking as a prophet and that is signified, once again, by official publication.

[BCSpace]

Quote

All doctrine even though some may not be very important. Church would not have published them otherwise. Now I understand you may think it silly to think that piano lessons and artwork (have you seen and read the back of that artwork?) are doctrine, but consider the alternative; people blurring the lines of what is and is not doctrine. this is indeed what all critics and some apologist want to further their opinions or favorite chestnuts, but it isn't how the Church sees it.

Quote

I think that claiming the recipe for making cookies or playdough or a picture of kids playing in the snow or the song "Popcorn popping on the apricot tree" is doctrine is expanding the term "doctrine" into uselessness.

I totally understand.  But I've been in the loop on too many doctrinal questions that have gone up to regional rep or HQ and come back down to us.  The instant you imply there are unindentified or unqualified chunks of "non-doctrine" in the publications is the instant you blur the line between doctrine and non doctrine.  You already have for example, in this thread, someone claiming that HM is not official doctrine even though it's officially published.

The Church expects most people to take it's word and not strain at gnats. But knowing that people will strain, all publications and everything in them are doctrine, no matter how small and the Church expects most people to be mature enough to understand their relative importance especially in cases of artwork or data entry.  Even those can be categorized under some doctrine about teaching children or keeping records etc.

The upshot being that identification of official doctrine is easy.  All one has to do is ask published or not?

Edited by BCSpace, 30 January 2012 - 02:23 PM.

[mfbukowski]

BCSpace, on 30 January 2012 - 01:56 PM, said:

Not quite.  A question like this about the cirriculum was asked in one of our council meetings in preparation for a conference.  Your notion actually restricts official doctrine to the changing yearly cirriculum materials used by the Church.  We were disabused of this notion.  The way to read it is that the doctrine is consistently published in whatever publication, not that a publication has to be consistently printed.  Just because a doctrine is no longer being "emphasized" doesn't mean it's no longer doctrine.  For example, plural marriage and the priesthood ban remain doctrines of the Church.  That is why you haven't seen them repudiated or apologized for etc.  The Church believes those prophets and apostles were acting under the inspiration/ revelation of God.

What council is "our council", preparing for what "conference"?   Your stake?

The problem is that "the way to read it" is ambiguous and has not be clarified, to my knowledge, by anyone in authority for the church.   Am I wrong?

[mfbukowski]

calmoriah, on 30 January 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

Totally agree.

What do you mean then by "being published by the Church"?

Yet another layer of ambiguity!   Is the Deseret News "published by the church"?  Who has defined that it is not?

[mfbukowski]

calmoriah, on 30 January 2012 - 02:10 PM, said:

I think that claiming the recipe for making cookies or playdough or a picture of kids playing in the snow or the song "Popcorn popping on the apricot tree" is doctrine is expanding the term "doctrine" into uselessness.

You are starting to sound a bit apostate to me.   Didn't you know that there was "one true way" to make cookies??   (chocolate chip of course!)  

[mfbukowski]

BCSpace, on 30 January 2012 - 02:20 PM, said:

The upshot being that identification of official doctrine is easy.  All one has to do is ask published or not?

But here's the problem I think you are missing: why should we believe YOU?   I mean I like you and all, and you are often totally right, but come on dude- the only evidence you have that you are right is your interpretation of an ambiguous press release- the author of which is unknown.